Officials note that any such proposal would still be dependent on President Trump signing off on it, though it does appear in keeping with his interest to escalate the fight against ISIS, and is also in keeping with comments by Defense Secretary James Mattis, who is said to be handling the recommendation process, who had talked of an “accelerated” ground campaign in Syria.

With US officials also discussing a cooperative effort with Turkey in fighting ISIS in Raqqa, a large US deployment would probably be an obvious next step, as Turkey has repeatedly ruled out working with the Kurdish troops the small US contingent in Syria is currently embedded within.

It is unclear how large of a force they are envisioning for this recommendation at this point, but any deployment is likely to risk increased tensions with Syria, and by extension Russia, if it comes without some direct coordination with those two nations. Syria has long objected to unilateral US deployments as a threat to their sovereignty, but has tentatively welcomed them as a partner against ISIS in a cooperative manner.

32 thoughts on “Pentagon May Recommend Deploying US Ground Troops to Syria”

I wouldn’t believe Counterfeit News Network if they told me the sun was going to set in the west. At least not without going out and verifying it for myself.

BTW, CNN just got kicked out of Venezuela for reporting ‘without proof’ and acting like a propaganda campaign. Sound familiar?

Are these the same un-named, Pentagon sources that said that Iraq had WMDs?

Easiest answer is to turn them off. Then watch them go out of business as their ratings plummet. Whenever I have any sort of TV system, I use the Obscenity controls to block them (and others). Life is much better that way. I’m happier, and better informed without having to get their lies out of my head through research.

Uh, what is so unbelievable about the story? Can you be specific? I bet not.

This is the problem with knee-jerk labeling of anything one dislikes as FAKE NEWS.

From Mattis’ confirmation hearing-

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the committee’s chairman, asked Mattis whether he believed the U.S. needed to expand its ongoing campaign against ISIS in Mosul, Iraq, to the militants’ headquarters in Raqqa, Syria.

“I believe we do, sir,” Mattis said, emphasizing that the current strategy needs to be reviewed and possibly “energized on a more aggressive timeline
You can go find VIDEO of this, if you doubt it.

Whichever one looks at it, it will be messy. The problem is, such information is coming just days before Geneva conference, and all the work may end up being undone. It is hard to believe that any of the groups would accept peace, if there is a chance they will get boost from US. The problem is, ISIS is in the region bordering Turkey, as well as Iraq. And US forces in that region would effectively, and for a long time, separate Iraq and Syria. That would in the long time be bad for the regional economic integration, as US troops never seem to know how to exit, once they enter any place. Let us see what will happen with the vaunted cooperation with Russia in beating down ISIS. But what is the point in going into Syria, when ISIS is really emanating from Iraq, and by stopping the operations in Mosul — not a dent will be made in ISIS strength. But then, Saudi highways are open all the way to Iraq, and with a medal for fighting terrorism, Saudis can now to their hearts content send more head choppers to fortify Northern Iraq.
There is just one more problem to contend with. Arabs of Raqqa region have formed their own forces around Hassakah. This is in response to Kurds who in the name of fighting ISIS are just spreading into majority Arab towns. What a mess.

The US agenda we know as the PNAC agenda is not going to change. It is not compatible with the Russian agenda. US troops in Syria can only mean that it’s to promote more war until the overthrow of Assad.

What is the factual basis for the author’s assertion that Syria has agreed to the presence of US forces in Syria? Apparently there have indeed been small numbers of US special forces operating in Syria, but has Syria really agreed to this? I haven’t seen any discussion of such an agreement anywhere.

I agree with you 100%, Jason. I, too, will only support our troops if they fight ISIS. I definitely won’t do so if they’re in Syria to oust Assad. I like Assad because he guarantees religious freedom. It doesn’t matter whether the Syrian people are Christian, Jewish, or Sunni and Shia Islamic. Assad himself is outwardly secular, even though he belongs to the Allawite version of Shia Islam.

Secular? Then how can Assad’s brutality against his people be explained?

It’s easy to explain. In the same way leaders of all countries react to armed resurrections against their government. They kiil the traitors. This is also consistent with the way
Saddam handled traitors. He killed them.

Just a little diversion that may be able to add to our growing understanding Eileen.

My impression is Assad is brutal towards those that are trying to transform Syria into an Islamic state. Saddam was also brutal towards fundamentalists. Secular strongmen are the best we can hope for in the Middle East. I’ll take them anyday over the radical Islamists that the Neocons favor.

Have you verified Trump’s remarks through reliable sources instead of the Lame Stream media, Bastiat? Remember, Trump vowed to fight ISIS alongside Turkey and Russia in his Inaugural address. Any US troops who happen to be in Syria were covertly sent there by Trump’s predecessor (Barack Obama), without the knowledge/consent of the Assad Govt. Therefore, Trump didn’t lie. You got your information from the lying propaganda machine, not from reliable sources.

Well, if YOU paid attention to what Trump said during the campaign, you know that he either:

1) Said whatever he thought his audience wanted to hear; or

2) Said whatever happened to pop into his head; and

3) Five minutes later might say exactly the opposite of what he said five minutes before.

He’s also the consummate politician, with a gift for making his supporters believe that he just said whatever it is they want him to have said (and, in some cases, to believe that he just did whatever is they want him to have done).

In other words: the US is invading the sovereign state of Syria under pretense of fighting ISIS which Gen Flynn documented was armed by the US… and the Russians?

Guess the Pentagon maniacs want to reproduce their JFK moment when the world sat on the brink of nuclear war over similarly reckless moves to put huge US missiles on the Russian border in Turkey.

Maybe this time we won’t be so lucky… but NeoCons and Liberals are united in provoking WW III … and Trump will likely play along… especially since he’s totally disoriented these days… a Syrian adventure will be promised as a way for his Redemption.

“Without some direct coordination…” indeed, that’s what Syria and Russia has been asking for all along: join them in fighting the terrorists. While publicly working with the Russians is politically toxic right now, let’s hope that if this scheme moves forward there are solid back-channel understandings. Otherwise, WWIII is coming soon.

Russia’s aim is to restore order and the government the Syrian people prefer. The US agenda is eliminating Russian influence from Syria and establishing complete US control.

How can those two opposing agendas ever be compatible with each other. It doesn’t mean WW3 though because the US knows that outright attack against Russia is not in the cards. Slow and relentless encroachment on Russia’s borders is. As well as coercing the Russian people away from their solid support of Putin by making it too costly to support him.

You’re absolutely right, Don. Russia’s aim is definitely to restore order and the govt. the Syrian people prefer. In the last presidential election in that country, the people voted overwhelmingly for Bashir al-Assad’s re-election. Indeed, the US agenda is eliminating Russian influence from Syria and establishing total control.
You’re correct. How can those opposing agendas ever be compatible with each other? They cannot. It doesn’t mean a 3rd World War though, because the US knows that an outright attack against Russia isn’t in the cards .. but, slow and relentless encroachment on Russia’s borders is .. as well as coercing the Russian people away from their solid support of Putin by making it too costly to support him.
As you correctly stated, Brian, it’s not working at all.

A newly declassified CIA document explored multiple scenarios of Syrian regime collapse at a time when Hafez al-Assad’s government was embroiled in a covert “dirty war” with Israel and the West, and in the midst of a diplomatic crisis which marked an unprecedented level of isolation for Syria.

What you just said, Brian, is that the newly declassified CIA memo presents a blueprint for Syrian Regime Change, without any knowledge and consent from President Trump. In other words, the CIA explored multiple scenarios of Syrian regime collapse at a time when Hafez-al-Assad’s govt. was embroiled in a covert “dirty war” with Israel and the West, and was in the midst of a diplomatic crisis which marked an unprecedented level of isolation for Syria.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the CIA was running through similar scenarios today in their desperate quest to overthrow Hafez’s son, Bashir. The CIA – in cooperation with Mossad – has been dropping weapons to ISIS fighters from cargo planes, pretending to be arming the “moderate” rebels.